Bayer Expert Guide Meadow-Grass Management in Winter Cereals

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Bayer Expert Guide Meadow-Grass Management in Winter Cereals Bayer Expert Guide Meadow-grass Management in Winter Cereals www.bayercropscience.co.uk Introduction Copyright of photographs The term ‘meadow-grasses’ refers broadly to a group of around fifteen Poa species found in the UK. A few species are widespread All photography © Bayer CropScience Ltd 2015, except where indicated. and common; others very rare with only three of significant importance to the farmer. These are annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis, also known Active substances and trademark acknowledgements as rough-stalked meadow-grass) and smooth meadow-grass (Poa pratensis, also known as smooth-stalked meadow-grass). Atlantis®, Bacara®, biopower®, DFF ®, Liberator®, Movon®, Othello® and Vigon® are registered trademarks of Bayer. Of the three, both annual meadow-grass and rough meadow-grass are commonly found as weeds in arable and horticultural crops Atlantis WG contains mesosulfuron-methyl and iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium. Bacara contains diflufenican and flurtamone. (1,9,38,41,43). Liberator contains flufenacet and diflufenican. Othello contains diflufenican, iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium and mesosulfuron-methyl. Movon and Vigon contain flufenacet, diflufenican and flurtamone. Although smooth meadow-grass is widespread The objective of this booklet is to aid and assist Use plant protection products safely. and frequently found as a constituent of pastures, in the identification of these more common Always read the label and product information before use. grassy banks, roadside verges and field margins, meadow-grasses, and give an insight into their Pay attention to the risk indications and follow the safety precautions on the label. it is not usually a serious or persistent problem distribution and biology, and guidance on their For further information, please visit www.bayercropscience.co.uk or call Bayer Assist weed in arable crops (1,41). It is most often seen control in winter cereals. on 0845 6092266 (calls cost 5p per minute plus your telephone company’s network as an arable weed following ploughed up access charge) or 01223 226644. permanent pastures or grass seed crops (36). © Bayer CropScience Limited 2015. 2 3 Contents 1 Distribution of meadow-grasses 6 2 Economic implications of meadow-grass infestations 8 3 Reasons for the presence of meadow-grasses 9 4 Growth habit, biology and characteristics of meadow-grasses 10 4.1 Annual meadow-grass 10 4.2 Rough meadow-grass 10 4.3 Smooth meadow-grass 11 4.4 Identification characteristics of meadow-grasses 11 5 Meadow-grass control 14 5.1 Preventing new infestations 14 5.2 Herbicide resistant weeds 14 5.3 Key herbicides available for the control of meadow-grasses 15 6 Use of Othello for meadow-grass control in winter cereals 17 7 References 18 Meadow-grass 4 5 1 Distribution of meadow-grasses Whilst annual, rough and smooth meadow-grass are widespread and More recently in 1998/99, another survey of 569 Source GfK Kynetec. arable field headlands in the UK found that annual found in every county in the British Isles (2,3), only annual and rough meadow-grass occurred on around 40% of those meadow-grass are commonly found in arable crops. covered – making it almost twice as common as rough meadow-grass and almost five times more common than smooth meadow-grass (34). In 1981, a survey of winter wheat and barley crops Rough meadow-grass was considerably less conducted throughout Central Southern England, common, with the highest frequency being A survey in 2011 of 1,350 arable farmers in Britain reported that meadow-grasses (predominantly recorded in some areas of mixed farming. showed that 34% of farms applied herbicides Figure 1 annual and rough meadow-grass) were present The least common was smooth meadow-grass, specifically to control meadow-grass species (45) in 35% of fields throughout the area (24). the highest frequency being found in South East (Figure 1). The darkest red indicates the areas of Subsequent studies have shown that both annual and North Wales – and on average in only around most intensive herbicide usage specifically for and rough meadow-grass can also be found in 20% of fields visited. Throughout the remainder meadow-grass control. The paler areas in the spring-sown cereals (9,36,37,43). of Britain the frequency was around 10-20% of south and east of England however, do not fields infested (30). necessarily indicate a low incidence of meadow- A survey in 1991/92 showed annual meadow- grass. It is more likely that herbicides used for other grass to be the most common of the three Table 1 gives an indication of the areas worst and problem grasses, such as black-grass, have also meadow-grasses, being both very frequent and least affected by these three species. controlled meadow-grasses as a secondary target widely distributed in arable fields throughout Britain. weed in these counties. Table 1: Relative frequency of annual, rough and smooth meadow-grass throughout Of the remaining twelve species of meadow-grass Britain (1991/92) found in Britain (Table 2), nine are either rare or very rare – confined mainly to mountainous or rocky areas; and three, whilst frequent, are only found in Species Areas recorded as most Areas recorded as less woodlands, shady areas or on thin, dry soils. All are common common Key: Incidence of spraying for meadow-grasses unlikely to be encountered in arable situations (1). Annual meadow-grass Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Bedfordshire, Essex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Cambridgeshire, North Common throughout Britain: Berkshire, Norfolk, Teesside, Lincolnshire and Humberside, found in around 40-100% Lowest Highest Durham, Lancashire, Cumbria, South Yorkshire, South Wales, of fields surveyed Figure 1: Intensity of herbicide use for Cornwall, West and North Argyll and Bute meadow-grass control in cereals 2011 Wales, Northumberland, Dumfries and Galloway Rough meadow-grass Powys, Isle of Man, Hampshire, East Anglia, Bedfordshire, Table 2: Other meadow-grasses (Poa spp.) found in Britain Isle of Wight, Berkshire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Occurs throughout Britain Surrey, Sussex, Wiltshire, Avon, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, but only found in 10-60% East and West Midlands, Lancashire and Cumbria, North Early meadow-grass Poa infirma H.B.K. Glaucus meadow-grass Poa glauca Vahl. of fields surveyed Gloucestershire Wales, Central and North Bulbous meadow-grass Poa bulbosa L. Swamp meadow-grass Poa palustris L. Scotland Alpine meadow-grass Poa alpina L. Broad-leaved meadow-grass Poa chaxii Vill. Smooth meadow-grass Monmouthshire, Dorset, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Berkshire, North Wales and Bedfordshire Wavy meadow-grass Poa flexuosa Sm. Narrow-leaved meadow-grass Poa angustifolia L. Occurs across Britain, but only Anglesey, Northumberland and Wood meadow-grass Poa nemoralis L. Spreading meadow-grass Poa subcaerulea Sm. found in a maximum of 20% Durham, South West Scotland of fields surveyed Balfour’s meadow-grass Poa balfouri Parv. Flattened meadow-grass Poa compressa L. 6 7 2 Economic implications of meadow-grass 3 Reasons for the presence of meadow-grasses infestations Weed competition can impair cereal establishment Although not as competitive as some other annual In contrast to black-grass and brome grasses, the reasons for the and growth, resulting in reduced yields or poor grass-weeds, such as wild oats and bromes, grain quality. Where grass-weeds are present in the effects of meadow-grasses on crop yields presence of meadow-grasses are less clear-cut. cereals the incidence of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus are not insignificant. Rough meadow-grass for (BYDV) and some fungal pathogens, such as ergot example, is more competitive, plant for plant, The increase in frequency of grass-weeds in cereals (Claviceps purpurea), may also be increased. than black-grass (9,36). may be partially attributed to the widespread use Lodging caused by weeds can also make of both hormone-based, and other broad-leaved Of the two ‘problem’ meadow-grasses, rough harvesting difficult, time consuming and reduce weed herbicides throughout the late 1950’s to mid meadow-grass is the more competitive. Table 3 grain quality (36). 1960’s. It has been suggested their use caused a compares the competitive effect of some annual decline in susceptible broad-leaved species, leaving If uncontrolled, particularly in thin crops and under grass-weeds on winter wheat yields. grass-weeds uncontrolled and with potentially less moist growing conditions, meadow-grasses can competition (4,5,6,11). rapidly take hold to form a dense mat at the base Whilst there is little evidence on the competitive of the crop. effects of smooth meadow-grass in cereals, it is Annual meadow-grass is found on most soil types anticipated that, where it exists, it is likely to be and in most situations – especially where land is Even moderate populations of annual meadow- comparable to that of rough meadow-grass, as disturbed. It is dispersed on the wind and by both grass can still give rise to a decrease in cereal it is of both similar size and growth habit. animal and human intervention. It is therefore yields of up to 6%, although with very dense unsurprising that it is a very common weed in infestations (greater than 1,000 plants/m2), losses both UK agriculture and horticulture. of up to 25% have been recorded under moist conditions (10). In contrast, rough meadow-grass is essentially a perennial pasture grass that has gradually moved into arable cropping as pastures have been 2 Plant No. of plants/m ploughed up, particularly in mixed farming areas. Wild oat (Avena spp.) 0.5 In other areas it has also moved in from grassy field margins and field tracks, being spread by seed and Brome grasses (Bromus spp.) 3 vegetative means (22). Rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) 5 Direct drilling and minimal cultivations also favour Black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) 8 the germination and emergence of meadow- grasses, as most of their seeds (being stimulated Table 3: Number of plants shown to give a 2% yield reduction in winter wheat by light) germinate on or close to the soil surface (7,35).
Recommended publications
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Checklist of Poa in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal PhytoKeys 103: 27–60Updated (2018) checklist of Poa in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands 27 doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.103.26029 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://phytokeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Updated checklist of Poa in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands Ana Ortega-Olivencia1, Juan A. Devesa2 1 Área de Botánica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, s.n., 06006 Badajoz, Spain 2 Departamento de Botánica, Ecología y Fisiología Vegetal, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales, Edificio José Celestino Mutis, Ctra. de Madrid km. 396 A, 14014 Córdoba, Spain Corresponding author: Ana Ortega-Olivencia ([email protected]) Academic editor: M. Nobis | Received 20 April 2018 | Accepted 27 June 2018 | Published 10 July 2018 Citation: Ortega-Olivencia A, Devesa JA (2018) Updated checklist of Poa in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. PhytoKeys 103: 27–60. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.103.26029 Abstract Based on our study of 4,845 herbarium sheets of the genus Poa from the area covered by Flora iberica, namely, the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands, we recognise 24 taxa (17 species, 1 subspecies and 8 varieties), mostly perennials. Most of these taxa have wide global and/or European distributions, while two (P. legionensis and P. minor subsp. nevadensis) are Spanish endemics and two have restricted distribu- tions (P. ligulata, Iberia–North Africa; P. flaccidula, Iberia–North Africa and the Balearic Islands, extend- ing to Provence, France). We have studied the original publications of more than 225 names considered as synonyms, with those more historically cited in Flora iberica taken into account in this paper; a total of 26 are new synonyms.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Anleitung Für Die Geographische Artendatenbank Nachdem Sie Die
    Anleitung für die geographische Artendatenbank Nachdem Sie die Anwendung gestartet haben, können Sie mit den entsprechenden Werkzeugen zur gewünschten geographischen Lage finden. Im linken Auswahlmenü wählen Sie bitte "Artenfunde digitalisieren". Mit dem Button können Sie einen Punkt in die Karte setzen. Bitte beachten Sie unbedingt, dass bevor ein Punkt gesetzt wird alles geladen ist. Es müssen ungefähr 1,4 MB (Artenliste mit ca. 19.000 Arten) geladen werden. Links erscheint dann ein Disketten Symbol . Nach klick auf das Symbol erscheint ein Fenster, in dem die erforderlichen Angaben einzutragen sind. Die Felder bis „Ort des Fundes“ sind Pflichtfelder, hier müssen unbedingt Eingaben gemacht werden. 1 Die Eingabe über Autor und E-Mail des Autors sowie Bemerkungen sollten ebenso eingegeben werden. Diese Angaben werden in der Datenbank gespeichert, jedoch nicht veröffentlicht. Diese Angaben dienen intern dazu, die Wertigkeit der Eingaben beurteilen zu können. Es stehen z.B. beim "Artenname" Pulldown-Listen zur Verfügung, dadurch wird eine einheitliche Eingabe garantiert. Es stehen ca. 19.000 Arten zur Verfügung. Sollte es für eine Art keinen deutschen Namen geben, steht der wissenschaftliche Name zur Verfügung. Die Liste ist alphabetisch sortiert. Außerdem werden in der Liste keine ü,ö,ä und ß verwendet. Die Namen werden mit Umlauten geschrieben. Die vollständige Liste finden Sie im Anhang zu dieser Anleitung. Das Datum ist im Format JJJJ-MM-TT (z.B. 2012-01-27) einzugeben. Das wäre der 27. Januar 2012. Beenden Sie alle Eingaben durch drücken auf "Speichern". Während Ihrer aktuellen Internetsitzung haben Sie die Möglichkeit mit dem Button die Eingabe des Datensatzes wieder aus der Datenbank zu löschen.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora Mediterranea 26
    FLORA MEDITERRANEA 26 Published under the auspices of OPTIMA by the Herbarium Mediterraneum Panormitanum Palermo – 2016 FLORA MEDITERRANEA Edited on behalf of the International Foundation pro Herbario Mediterraneo by Francesco M. Raimondo, Werner Greuter & Gianniantonio Domina Editorial board G. Domina (Palermo), F. Garbari (Pisa), W. Greuter (Berlin), S. L. Jury (Reading), G. Kamari (Patras), P. Mazzola (Palermo), S. Pignatti (Roma), F. M. Raimondo (Palermo), C. Salmeri (Palermo), B. Valdés (Sevilla), G. Venturella (Palermo). Advisory Committee P. V. Arrigoni (Firenze) P. Küpfer (Neuchatel) H. M. Burdet (Genève) J. Mathez (Montpellier) A. Carapezza (Palermo) G. Moggi (Firenze) C. D. K. Cook (Zurich) E. Nardi (Firenze) R. Courtecuisse (Lille) P. L. Nimis (Trieste) V. Demoulin (Liège) D. Phitos (Patras) F. Ehrendorfer (Wien) L. Poldini (Trieste) M. Erben (Munchen) R. M. Ros Espín (Murcia) G. Giaccone (Catania) A. Strid (Copenhagen) V. H. Heywood (Reading) B. Zimmer (Berlin) Editorial Office Editorial assistance: A. M. Mannino Editorial secretariat: V. Spadaro & P. Campisi Layout & Tecnical editing: E. Di Gristina & F. La Sorte Design: V. Magro & L. C. Raimondo Redazione di "Flora Mediterranea" Herbarium Mediterraneum Panormitanum, Università di Palermo Via Lincoln, 2 I-90133 Palermo, Italy [email protected] Printed by Luxograph s.r.l., Piazza Bartolomeo da Messina, 2/E - Palermo Registration at Tribunale di Palermo, no. 27 of 12 July 1991 ISSN: 1120-4052 printed, 2240-4538 online DOI: 10.7320/FlMedit26.001 Copyright © by International Foundation pro Herbario Mediterraneo, Palermo Contents V. Hugonnot & L. Chavoutier: A modern record of one of the rarest European mosses, Ptychomitrium incurvum (Ptychomitriaceae), in Eastern Pyrenees, France . 5 P. Chène, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Orary
    TAXONOMY AND CULTIVAR DEVELOPMENT OF POA PRATENSIS L. David P. Byres 1 13 BOTANY ORARY PhD. University of Edinburgh 1984 1) Declaration. This thesis was composed by myself, and the work described herein is my own. David P. Byres CONTENTS Acknowledgements . • I \/ Abstract . Section A . Taxonomy. Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Introduction ..........................................1 1.2 Taxonomy .............................................1 1.3 Cultivar Development ............................... 4 Chapter 2. Literature Review : Taxonomy 2.1 Introduction ............. .............................7 2.2 History of the Taxonomic Treatment of of Poa pratensis L. s.1............ ....... 10 2.3 Taxonomic Characters used by previous workers .........14 Chapter 3. Materials and Methods. 3.1 Environmental Variation .................... 20 3.2 Population and Herbarium Studies .......... ............26 3.3 Taxonomic Analysis of Biotypes and Cultivars... ... ... 36 3.4 Statistical Analysis ..................................37 Chapter 4. Effect of Environmental Variation on Morphology. 4.1 Introduction .......................................... 38 4.2 Results ........................................ .......38 Chapter 5. Study of Poa pratensis Populations. 5.1 Introduction .......................................... 49 5.2 Results ........................ 49 Chapter 6. Study of Herbarium Material. 6.1 Introduction ......................................... 60 6.2 Results ....................... 60 Chapter 7. Morphological Examination of Biotypes and
    [Show full text]
  • Literaturverzeichnis
    Literaturverzeichnis Abaimov, A.P., 2010: Geographical Distribution and Ackerly, D.D., 2009: Evolution, origin and age of Genetics of Siberian Larch Species. In Osawa, A., line ages in the Californian and Mediterranean flo- Zyryanova, O.A., Matsuura, Y., Kajimoto, T. & ras. Journal of Biogeography 36, 1221–1233. Wein, R.W. (eds.), Permafrost Ecosystems. Sibe- Acocks, J.P.H., 1988: Veld Types of South Africa. 3rd rian Larch Forests. Ecological Studies 209, 41–58. Edition. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria, Abbadie, L., Gignoux, J., Le Roux, X. & Lepage, M. 146 pp. (eds.), 2006: Lamto. Structure, Functioning, and Adam, P., 1990: Saltmarsh Ecology. Cambridge Uni- Dynamics of a Savanna Ecosystem. Ecological Stu- versity Press. Cambridge, 461 pp. dies 179, 415 pp. Adam, P., 1994: Australian Rainforests. Oxford Bio- Abbott, R.J. & Brochmann, C., 2003: History and geography Series No. 6 (Oxford University Press), evolution of the arctic flora: in the footsteps of Eric 308 pp. Hultén. Molecular Ecology 12, 299–313. Adam, P., 1994: Saltmarsh and mangrove. In Groves, Abbott, R.J. & Comes, H.P., 2004: Evolution in the R.H. (ed.), Australian Vegetation. 2nd Edition. Arctic: a phylogeographic analysis of the circu- Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. marctic plant Saxifraga oppositifolia (Purple Saxi- 395–435. frage). New Phytologist 161, 211–224. Adame, M.F., Neil, D., Wright, S.F. & Lovelock, C.E., Abbott, R.J., Chapman, H.M., Crawford, R.M.M. & 2010: Sedimentation within and among mangrove Forbes, D.G., 1995: Molecular diversity and deri- forests along a gradient of geomorphological set- vations of populations of Silene acaulis and Saxi- tings.
    [Show full text]
  • Spreading Bluegrass Poa Pratensis Ssp. Irrigata (Lindm.) Lindb
    Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis L. spreading bluegrass Poa pratensis ssp. irrigata (Lindm.) Lindb. f. rough bluegrass Poa trivialis L. Introduction Kentucky bluegrass, spreading bluegrass, and rough bluegrass are treated together here because they share similar biological and ecological attributes. Invasiveness Rank: 52 The invasiveness rank is calculated based on a species’ ecological impacts, biological attributes, distribution, and response to control measures. The ranks are scaled from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a plant that poses no threat to native ecosystems and 100 representing a plant that poses a major threat to native ecosystems. Family: Poaceae Synonyms for Poa trivialis: Poa attica Boiss. & Heldr. Other common names: none Synonyms for Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis: Poa agassizensis Boivin & D. Löve, Poa angustifolia L., Description Poa angustiglumis Roshevitz, Poa pratensis ssp. Kentucky bluegrass and spreading bluegrass are agassizensis (Boivin & D. Löve) Taylor & MacBryde, strongly rhizomatous, mat-forming, perennial grasses Poa pratensis ssp. angustifolia (L.) Lej., Poa pratensis that grow 15 to 76 cm tall. Rough bluegrass lacks var. angustifolia (L.) Gaudin, P. pratensis var. anceps rhizomes and is tufted with decumbent bases. The culms (Gaudin) Grisebach, Poa pratensis var. domestica of rough bluegrass grow up to 91 cm tall. In all three Laestad., Poa pratensis var. gelida (Roemer & J.A. taxa, leaf blades are flat to folded and smooth with Schultes) Böcher, Poa pratensis var. iantha Wahlenb., double mid-ribs. Leaf tips are prow-shaped, as they are P. viridula Palibin. in most Poa species. Sheaths are rounded to somewhat Other common names: none keeled, partially closed, and smooth. Panicles are broadly pyramidal and compact.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-05013
    Ecography ECOG-05013 Aikio, S., Ramula, S., Muola, A. and von Numers, M. 2020. Island properties dominate species traits in determining plant colonizations in an archipelago system. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.05013 Supplementary material Supplementary material Appendix 1 Fig. A1. Pairwise relationships and correlation coefficients of the island variables in the AIC- simplified model. 1 Fig. A2. Pairwise relationships and correlation coefficients of the plant traits in the AIC- simplified model. 2 Dispersal_vector [wind_water] Dispersal_vector [endozoochor] Dispersal_vector [unspecialised] Historical_total_log Pollen_vector [abiotic_insect] Life_form [herb] Dispersal_vector [myrmerochor] Dispersal_vector [epizoochor] Area_log Plant_height_log Limestone [Yes] Convolution Buffer_2_km_log Life_cycle [short] Seed_mass_log Veg_repr [Yes] North_limit Seed_bank [transient] Ellenberg_Nitrogen Ellenberg_Moisture Residents_per_area_log Ellenberg_Temperature Ellenberg_Reaction Shannon_habitats Shore_meadow Deciduous_forest Mixed_forest Marsh Buffer_5_km_log Buildings Euref_X Meadow_or_pasture Euref_Y Eklund_culture SLA Ellenberg_Light Coniferous_forest Sand Open_rock_or_bare_ground Seed_bank [unknown] Apomictic [Yes] Life_form [woody] Pollen_vector [insect] Pollen_vector [abiotic_self] Dist_to_historical_log Pollen_vector [self] Pollen_vector [insect_self] 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 Odds Ratio Fig. A3. Odds ratios (i.e., exp[parameter estimate]) and 95% confidence intervals for the fixed effects of the colonization model (full model of all 587 species with
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Communities with Naturalized Elaeagnus Angustifolia L. As a New
    Acta Biologica Sibirica 7: 49–61 (2021) doi: 10.3897/abs.7.e58204 https://abs.pensoft.net RESEARCH ARTICLE Plant communities with naturalized Elaeagnus angustifolia L. as a new vegetation element in Altai Krai (Southwestern Siberia, Russia) Alena A. Shibanova1, Natalya V. Ovcharova1 1 Altai State University, 61 Lenina Prospect, Barnaul, 656049, Russia Corresponding author: Alena A. Shibanova ([email protected]) Academic editor: D. German | Received 1 September 2020 | Accepted 29 January 2021 | Published 13 April 2021 http://zoobank.org/1B70B70D-7F9C-4CEB-907A-7FA39D1446A1 Citation: Shibanova AA, Ovcharova NV (2021) Plant communities with naturalized Elaeagnus angustifolia L. as a new vegetation element in Altai Krai (Southwestern Siberia, Russia). Acta Biologica Sibirica 7: 49–61 https://doi. org/10.3897/abs.7.e58204 Abstract Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian olive) is a deciduous small tree or large multi-stemmed shrub that becomes invader in different countries all other the world. It is potentially invasive in some regions of Russia. In the beginning of 20th century, it was introduced to the steppe region of Altai Krai (Rus- sia, southwestern Siberia) to prevent wind erosion. During last 20 years, Russian olive starts to create its own natural stands and to influence on native vegetation. This article presents the results of eco- coenotic survey of natural plant communities dominated by Elaeagnus angustifolia L. first described for Siberia and the analysis of their possible syntaxonomic position. The investigation conducted during summer season 2012 in the steppe region of Altai Krai allows revealing one new for Siberia association Elytrigio repentis–Elaeagnetum angustifoliae and no-ranged community Bromopsis inermis–Elae- agnus angustifolia which were included to the Class Nerio–Tamaricetea, to the Order Tamaricetalia ramosissimae.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of North America North of Mexico
    Flora of North America North of Mexico Edited by FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA EDITORIAL COMMITTEE VOLUME 24 MagnoUophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Foaceae, part 1 Edited by Mary E. Barkworth, Kathleen M. Capéis, Sandy Long, Laurel K. Anderton, and Michael B. Piep Illustrated by Cindy Talbot Roché, Linda Ann Vorobik, Sandy Long, Annaliese Miller, Bee F Gunn, and Christine Roberts NEW YORK OXFORD • OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS » 2007 Oxford Univei;sLty Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York /Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto Copyright ©2007 by Utah State University Tlie account of Avena is reproduced by permission of Bernard R. Baum for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada, ©Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, 2007. The accounts of Arctophila, Dtipontui, Scbizacbne, Vahlodea, xArctodiipontia, and xDiipoa are reproduced by permission of Jacques Cayouette and Stephen J. Darbyshire for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada, ©Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, 2007. The accounts of Eremopoa, Leitcopoa, Schedoiioms, and xPucciphippsia are reproduced by permission of Stephen J. Darbyshire for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada, ©Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, 2007. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Utah State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomarbeit
    Diplomarbeit vorgelegt zur Erlangung des Grades eines Diplom-Biologen an der Fakultät für Biologie und Biotechnologie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum Phylogenie der Brandpilzgattung Urocystis von Sascha Lotze-Engelhard Angefertigt im LS Evolution und Biodiversität der Pflanzen, AG Geobotanik Bochum im Dezember 2010 Referent: Prof. Dr. D. Begerow Koreferent: Prof. Dr. R. Tollrian 2 ҅Fungi have a profound impact on global ecosystems. They modify our habitats and are essential for many ecosystem functions. Fungi form soil, recycle nutrients, decay wood, enhance plant growth and cull plants from their environment. They feed us, poison us, parasitize us and cure us. They destroy our crops, homes and libraries, but they also produce valuable biochemicals, such as ethanol and antibiotics. For both practical and intellectual reasons it is important to provide a phylogeny of Fungi on which a classi- fication can be firmly based. ҆ (Blackwell u.a. 2006) Inhaltsverzeichnis 3 Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis ........................................................................................................... 3 Abbildungsverzeichnis .................................................................................................... 6 Tabellenverzeichnis ........................................................................................................ 7 Abkürzungsverzeichnis .................................................................................................. 8 1 Einleitung ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Newsletter 2016-17
    Issue 2 NFG Winter Newsletter 2016-17 Norfolk Flora Group – Winter Newsletter 2016-17 Welcome to the NFG Winter Newsletter Amazingly, and despite the state of dormancy which many of us enter into at this time of year, a number of you read the inaugural edition; and some of you even seemed to enjoy it (or at least were too polite to say otherwise). Anyway; we were sufficiently encouraged that we decided to produce Issue No. 2. In this issue … we find out about Robin’s very large vegetable. There have been rumours, but we now have photographic evidence. Our esteemed Dr Leaney tells us about all the things we secretly wanted to know (but have always been too shy to ask) about glands; Richard discusses problems with Poa; the eagerly awaited results of ‘Norfolk Flora Group Pub of The Year’ are finally made public; Mike C goes fishing; and much, much more. We again take a quick look back at some of the more interesting moments from the 2016 botanising season, and prevue some of the events planned for the 2017 season. Contributors to this edition are Suki Pryce, Janet Higgins, Bob Leaney, Mike Crewe, Robin Stevenson and myself, together with our glorious ‘leaders’, Richard Carter and Bob Ellis; and our mysterious crossword compiler. Feedback on the content, types of articles etc would be very welcome. If anyone would like to prepare something for the 2017-18 edition, or nominate a ‘friend’, or even someone you dislike intensely, to write something (they need never know), I would be delighted to hear from you.
    [Show full text]